Tuesday, June 13, 2017

There is a cute saying that Abraham wore a streimel, a
Hasidic ‘hat’, and before thinking that this is preposterous, please consider
why: ‘Would Abraham leave town without his streimel’? We live in a world where
being [religiously] right carries more value than being [religiously] wise.
Abraham didn’t wear a streimel. But those dedicated to the search for Abraham’s
attire, will ‘find’ scriptural proof that he did indeed wear a streimel. So did
Abraham wear a streimel? No, and this is why.

People play games, and the games they play are usually
without any real tangible rules. Have you ever seen the guy shoot the arrow and
draw the target around it? This is called cheating, and if it were a religious
game, it would be akin to playing with an unusual bias. There is no greater
perpetrator of [religious] rules than the Church. The church is built on
Abraham’s streimel; a strong predisposition that Yeshu can be scripturally ‘found’
seemingly everywhere. Only through false religion and its ministries, could a
‘religious’ story be so pernicious. Not only does the Yeshu story contradict
every tenet of wisdom, but it carries with it an unprecedented level of
audacity.

Christian clergymen sound much like used car salesmen: ‘Yeshu
was Moses’, ‘Yeshu was Moses’ wife’, or better yet, ‘Yeshu may have actually
been Abraham’s streimel’! All of this is ‘proven’ with scripture only in
hindsight, in the name of being dogmatically right. Religious story-telling is ridiculously
based on fabricated scriptures; the core methodology is corrupt. This is not a
mere practice of reclaiming wisdom through logic; this is pure replacement
theology and it is a trademark of the uneducated. The moral of the religious
story is supposed to achieve a true outcome. Where other faiths predictably
disappoint, Judaism sets the good example, establishing that the Torah was
given in order to reveal God through proper thinking.

Religious discussions revolve around the nature of Man, and
scripture speaks about the Jew and the gentile according to their existential
destinies, and inter-personal relationships. The Jewish People are known as the
Children of Israel, while non-Jewish scriptural vernacular has become subject
to much debate. Usually this debate is filled with bias and an Abraham’s
streimel argument. The dogma goes, that the non-Jew is to convert and become a
part of The Children of Israel. But why?

It is widely assumed that the Hebrew term for convert is
Ger. Here is where the corrupt formula is set, basing it on typical biased
thoughts: ‘If everyone is supposed to be Jewish in the end, and the Torah has
Jews and non-Jews in it…then ‘Ger’ must mean convert. And hey, why not,
Abraham was a Ger…’.

Bias leads people to imagine that ‘the World will all
convert one day thus Ger is convert’. Too often, what seems to be
religiously logical actually doesn’t make any sense at all. In the case of Ger,
there is no precedent to anticipate a time of a great global conversion. Ger
exists within its many meanings and connotations and Ger does not exclusively
mean convert

In some places however, Ger may indeed mean convert, or it
may mean partial convert, i.e. Ger Toshav. It may mean the Torah abiding
non-Jew in your gates. Ger may mean many things all at the same time. Or it
could also refer to something different altogether, like alien, stranger,
dweller, repentant, or even Torah intelligence itself! By blindly calling the
Ger a convert, one has replaced wisdom with dogma, leading to an elimination of
spiritual curiosity. To reiterate, Ger does not mean convert; on the contrary,
it is a subject of great scholarship.

Study is an opportunity to reveal Godly Wisdom. To deny this
privilege of the soul is sacrilegious and vain. Mankind by nature is diverse
and is appropriately found within the diversity that is Ger. Perforce Ger can’t
be limited to conversion in context, or subjected to Abraham’s furry
streimel.

‘Abraham’s streimel’ is drawn up as a pre-designed target
that just happens to end up with a narrow arrow in its center. Teaching ‘Ger
means convert’ is a bad idea, and it is the first clue of missing scholarship. Likewise,
the ‘Ger is convert mentality’ is Christian in concept and bears the guilt of
proselytizing, which Judaism stands firmly against.

If you want to know the truth, I don’t know if Abraham wore
a streimel or not, but what The Torah does teach is that Abraham was the father
to all Gerim, and specific to Abraham, ‘convert’ is a poor translation.

Ger is worth looking honestly into and is studied best without
the ‘that’s not what I was told…’ mantra in mind; it is better to
identify with those who are curious and wise than those who are intellectually
lost and biased. I stand with the real Abraham as told by scripture: ‘The
father of all Gerim’… and although his personal attire was never in question,
his offspring inevitably always will be.

This post is dedicated to people who make Avraham streimel arguments. When pressed to deliver facts to back up an argument, they resort to weak logical [and strawman] arguments. The argument would go something like this:

'Avraham was chayav misa [liable for the death penalty] for keeping Shabbos as a Ben Noach.' Someone would then respond, 'please cite an actual source that can be looked up stating as such.' To which the original author would resort to a low grade logical fallacy by arguing, 'No, it's on YOU to show where it is ALLOWED for a Ben Noach to not be chayav misa in this way.'

In this case, as in all cases, the answer is look it up and present your source. As for Avraham and keeping Shabbos, the source is the Brisker Rav, and no, an Avraham streimel logical fallacy does not usurp the Brisker Rav. That is call Am Ha-Aretzass. People that argue this way have no authority or place in any type of education. In fact, they are usually treif fundamentalists, or something even worse.

(as my name was included in between: Ari Abramowitz: "What is it really that connects us all [Jews and Christians]? It's that we're Biblical Zionists!" andJeremy Gimpel: "Jews and Christians can set aside their theological differences and unite under the "ideology" of "Biblical Zionism.")

...is not only distasteful, but motzie shem rah as well. I teach non-Jews who have rejected shituf [Christianity]. This is not the same as a Christian, nor an ex-Christian. A Ger [Toshav] is a 'Kosher Ben-Noach'.

**It would be wise to know your 'ikkar terms' in this 'sugia'.

...what wasn't blogged by this blogger was the rest of the post [that I blogged 5 years ago]: click here

...and even more ironic, is that my newest blog about zionism, which was brought to the blogger's attention was completely ignored: click here

Sof sof - if you are going to try and prove a point, then at least prove it with emes, rather than resorting to open tactics of pure sheker.

For those who wish to know more about what is 'Ger' and how 'Gerim' are those who reject shituf, i.e. Christianity, and all other religions in the nations - click here

...let's not forget that a convert is called a Jew, and the Ger in the Torah is a massive subject. To learn about Ger in general: click here